WebKit alone makes Apple more of a friend to open source than Epic.

Apple was obligated to open source WebKit. The only other project I can think of where they have been open by choice is Swift.

We were obligated to provide source code for the LGPL parts corresponding to official releases. We were not obligated to make it a community open source project with a live repo, or to accept code for ports to non-Apple platforms. We chose to do those things.

(clang and llvm are also open by choice)

> clang and llvm are also open by choice

I do like the fact that we now have two competing compilers and llvm brought a lot of innovation, but everyone know that only reason Apple invested in these projects is to avoid GPLv3.

And yeah at the same time Apple's locked platform and Webkit-only policy saves us from Chromium monopoly over the web and helps Firefox live. So yeah world is not just abstract "good and evil" obviously.

> that only reason Apple invested in these projects is to avoid GPLv3

So if that's the only reason, then why did Apple hire Lattner to work on llvm in 2005 (two years prior to gcc's switch to v3)?

Surely it would have been easier to just fork one of the GPLv2 releases from 2007 or earlier.

Okay it's not the only reason, but certainly one of primary ones. All proprietary software developers had issue with GCC long before switch to GPLv3. GNU declined all attempts to make compiler IR accessible for 3rd-party software which would make proprietary extensions possible. And yeah it's the reason why LLVM take that niche.

Also GPLv3 was officially announced in 2005. It's was just matter of time before all GNU projects switch to new license version. And it was certainly.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/gpl-3-may-tackle-web-loophole/

Oh and there was plans to release GPLv3 even earlier in 2004 and it's was known that it's will include patents grant. This was obviously absolutely unacceptable for Apple:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/look-for-a-new-gpl-in-2005/

As I recall, Apple didn't choose to do those things for many years. Originally they did just dump zips of the source code on some FTP site.

I guess person you reply to is actual webkit developer though.

In fact I was one of the main drivers for moving WebKit to a community open source model and away from helicopter drops of tarballs.

That's true, but still a far cry from Valve which has native Linux support for Steam and is actively involved in many open source projects.

Yeah, but Valve also doing all of this not just of goodwill, but as insurance in case Windows become full walled garden. Like it or not, but Epic working more or less the same direction.

Also Valve didnt start to use open source packaging software and haven't even made their own game engine source-available let alone open source. Yes it's nice they improving Linux graphics stack, but they also could do much more.

Like really I dont use Epic Games Store to buy anything neither I support the way they try to capture market share. But any attacks on locked down platforms is a good thing for FOSS.

Pretty much the same sentiment in regards to Epic - on PC it's yet another store to install & there have been some weird practices in making games exclusive, etc.

But in their attacks on Walled Garden - 100% behind them for that.